Parliament The Covenant is lyable to more exceptions then at present I am willing to take the very designe was extreamly scandalous and as great a blow to Religion I am perswaded as it ever receiâ—ed in the world as representing it to be the parent of the worst of vices rebellions sacriledge and perjury some men have adventured to teach that God is the author of all sin these men come very neer them that can do the worst of Villanies upon his score fear God and break his commandements and all upon the newly revealed Doctrine of Piety and Plunder Surely Humility Patience self-deniall taking up the Cross loving enemies praying for persecutors are things commended only to pusillanimous and morrall men Hath the spirit that came down upon Christ in the forme of a Dove appeared since in the shape of a Vulture or a Roman Eagle was it weaknesse not religion that kept the primitive Châ—â—stians obedient must whatever they said about Rebelion be construed with this tacite reserve untill we have an opportunity We read in Scripture of a blessing laid up for those who in defence of Christ and his truth part with their Lands Houses or Life but not of any for those who upon that score invade other mens That there were no rewards appointed for those who killed Tyrants Buchanan esteemed it as a defect in policy and it is one in religion too He might as easily observed it to be an omission in the Law of God as man The quarrel was not then about Doctrine so much as discipline our articles were esteemed Orthodox our discipline not appostolick enough Their discipline in terminis in Scripture and as a command to introduce it with fire and sword in defiance of Prince and Laws are surely to be found in the same chapter These tender Consciences are very prety things that dare not conform to an indifferent Ceremony in obedience to all the authority the law of England takes notice Civill or Ecclesiasticall without an expresse command or example of Christ or his Apostles and yet without either can take up arms against their Soveraign plunder and slay all whose Consciences are not of the same size The Covenant not to mention upon what grounds they who at first Idolized it do now look upon it as an abominable Idoll lyes open to very just and very many material Obâ—ections It being my businesse onely by the by I shall onely intimate those that are so obvious that they cannot escape a very ordinary observer First It is directly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy formerly taken wherein they swear the King to be the oâ—ely supream Governour in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporall which power they there swear to defend and by resolving to reform the Church without nay against his direct Command they now as absolutely with an Oath too deny it Secondly It is contrary to the Oaths of Canonical obedience to their Ordinary Bishops Chancellors c. which those of them which had entered into Orders took and conscienciously observed by swearing their utter exterpation a Government they by subsciption testified to be lawfull which judgement many of them were known never to change till it was their interest the late usuall season of conversion so to do And some think a good Bishoprick would seduce many of them to their old errour again Thirdly Ecclesiasticall affaires never were nor can be by the law of England which they broke even in this very act of Covenanting for the laws as they said consulted on in Parliament but onely to have the civill Sanction and that after the law is expresse they have been determined by the Clergy in Convocation See The Reformation of the Church of England Justified a whole book to that purpose Now whether the Assembly of Divines being not called by the King who alone hath power by the Law to do it nor elected by the Clergy who alone have power to send the true Convocation not dissolved may be called The Clergy in Convocation I will leave to any one to determine and onely observe that as in other illegall Acts the late Powers proceeded according to their example so in this particularly Their naming what members they pleased without Election of the Clergy to sit in the Assembly was a fit President for Oliver Cromwel to call whom he pleased without choice of the Country to sit in the little Parliament The State and Church was pulled down the same way Fourthly The Covenant could not be imposed according to the Doctrine of the long Parliament who Ex Col. p. 859. tels us Men are not to be compelled to be sworn without an Act of Parliament which certainly the Votes of the two Houses are not I shall not prosecute these things any further but observe some few particulars in the Covenant it self and onely wonder with what face not to say with what Conscience men the professed Champions of our Liberty and of no part so much as our Consciences in regard of Oaths imposed even by an unquestionable Authority could on the sudden use such barbarous rigour toward the freeborn people of England for not taking that Oath which themselves had according to the fore-cited Doctrine no power to impose and the others had the â—ommand of the Prince Law and unanswered Reason to refuse at least they could say what themselves once thought enough it was against their Consciences We shall now examine whether there is any amends made in the Materiall Cause for the faultinesse of the Efficient and there is a presumption that it is so sure such good men would not involve their Country in the miseries of a War resist their Prince but in an order to a thing that was very excellent if not necessary That assertion in the Preface which gives chief countenance to the undertaking is a most horrible falsity that it was according to the Commendable practise of these kingdomes in former times and the example of Gods people in other Nations England hath behaved her self so commendably that it is impossible to make it out to have been her practise whosoever swears it to have been untill he can produce his instances if he doth not meet with very charitable persons will be looked upon as one horribly Perjured The Churches of God if there were any before Presbytery Rebelled into a being whose examples may be Rules to us must be either the holy men before the law under the law or the Primitive Christians beofore Religion was made a Bawde to Interest He that thinks there can be a thing fetcht from their doings in favour of this league let him serve that cause so far as to attempt The History of Covenants and see how many examples he can produce of Fighters with their Prince for not introducing a form of Worship they better liked of than what was by law established The Covenants we read of in Scripture were not against the King but with the King nor when the Kings refused doe we
read that the Prophets ever exhorted the People to such attempts But no remedy â—here is men must be undone unlessâ— they will swear with hands lifted up to Heaven this matter of fact though they do not know it to be so nay though they know it not to be so and which is prodigiously strange One of the first arguâ—ents that commended it to the world is a direct contraâ—iction to this assertion when the Covenant with a Narrative tells us that there never was such a Thing seen in the world before It might be observed that Errour is far incorporated with her Tenents that what is true in it self is false when they speak it as almost the very first word All living under one King according to the Declaration of May 26. 1642. and the â—octrine that â—ustified the War from being Treason though against the King beâ—ause he was not King in his Personall but Politique capacity i. e. the two Houses to war against whom by that law was Treason according to this I say we have three Kings in as much as we have three Parliaments in the three Nations and in my weak judgment appointing all Officers Declaring who are Offenders and uncapable of mercy resolving to reform Church and State according to their own modell against the Kings expresse Will and Command are no great evidences of living under him The first Article is To endeavour the preservation of the Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Discipline c. The Reformation in England Ireland according to the word of God the best example of the best Reformed Churches and to endeavour to bring the three Kingdomes to uniformity in Church Government c. By those words according to the word of God They use to mean prescribed in it upon which where do you finde such or such a Ceremony was the common Question But so the forms of worship in Scotland used in Marriage Burial Preaching Discipline by Classes Assemblies higher and lower are not so well known in England muchlesse so clear in the word of God that every Artisan can in an instant be so assured that they are there as to swear it in judgement this Oath is by so much the more oppressive intolerable that it is not satisfied with a quiet submission to and a patient enduring of their intollerable insolencies in which respects it is more barbarous than the Engagement but obliges every man zealously and constantly to premote it There is in this Article more jugling then is tolerable in so sacred a thing as an Oath their friends being of so severall parties neither of which would be content the Church should be reformed according to the others modell There are several words put in which that party which wit or strength or accident shall set uppermost at last may interpret to their own sense iâ— eâ— advantage To please the Presbyterians The Church of Scotland Doctrine and Government is sworn to be preserved and all the three Kingdomes to be brought to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Confession of â—aith Church-Government Directory c. Now this can be compassed no otherwise then by reducing all to the pattern of Scotland that being before sworn to be preserved But that the Sectarian Brethren of no sort may be displeased the word of God is expressely said to be the rule by which each Sect were sure of carrying the cause their own way and if any had a peculiar fancy to New-England or any other Church he thought better of the term of the best reformed Church secured him to them and he was by that assured the day was approaching wherein the men of his perswasion should triumph That the Covenant was taken in the various senses and with different hopes every one knows and that the ambiguous penning gives each party ground for it it is fondnesse to deny To please those who were for Church-government they Covenanted against Schism but least they should displease those who were against Church Government they could never be brought to proscribe nor while they had use of them to fight against the King so much as to tell who were Schismatick Surely Conscientious men who had sworn to extirpate Schisme Heresie and whatever was contrary to godlinesse would have thought Antinomians Anaâ—aptists c. or some other of those hard names that then swarmed about the City to have come under that head but in the same sense as fighting against the King is being for him being against Schismaticks is putting Armes and Offices into their hands The Common enemies this Oath engageth men against must not be explained too far least it discourage their best friends Papists and Prelatists may safely be named for the rest Mr. Henderson explicated them to be the Syrians and the Babylonians The second Article is to extirpate Archbishops Bishops c. whom there being no need I shall not at present plead for only this That Government in the judgment of very many Covenanters Clergy and Lay was inexpedient onely and not unlawfull upon whom the guilt of Perjury lyes very heavy for breaking their former Oaths leavying War against their King disturbing the peace of the Nation turning so many gallant men convict of no crime but their lands which other men had a minde to be guilty of and they had as good a right to as the law of England could give and all upon the sole point of inexpediency Into this point I shall dive no further but take some small notice of the reason here rendred for this certainly illegall Act of pulling down that Government of the Church without the Kings Authority lest they be partakers of other mens sins I doe not apprehend that ever I read words more destructive to every Government and to the peace of every Nation in the world they sound thus Whensoever there is a Government or form of worship in the Church which we doe not believe to be according to the word of God we are bound in Conscience nay they of another Nation are as the Scots were to us who upon this Reason Vow to extirpate our Bishops to take up Arms though it be against our King and reform for if we doe not we make our selves guilty of other mens sins A proposition that creates a perpetuall Apology for crafty men and justifies nay necessitates the vilest attempts of deluded ones The Anabaptâ—â—s in Germany did the Separatists in Queen Elizabeth's dayes attempted no more then this warrants If this Doctrine were true I wonder the Prophets and Priests of old that lived under Idolatrous Princes were nor carefuller of their own souls and lift up their voice like a Trumpet in another sense than the Scripture mentions them to have done There cannot easily be imagined greater occasion for such irregular proceedings if they are at all justifiable in any Nation then in the Jewish their Princes being so often and so strangely guilty of Idolatry a crime clearly by their law described and forbidden yet we
is required to repeal a law will by this time I hope be a small argument of their partitipation of the Soveraignty sure I am the Monarchs of the East were as much limitted the laws of the Meades and Persians which change not at the pleasure of the King the Scripture mentions even those Princes were sworn to observe the Laws Ahasuerus could not revoke the Decree against the Jews nor Darius though he passionately desired it of his Nobles save Daniel Dan. 6. He that would affirm that to be a mixt Monarchy or that those Nobles or any else were sharers in the Government to say no more would bring a new Doctrine into the world The next Objection is in short this In a Declaration set forth in the Kings name It is acknowledged that the King Lords and Commons make the three Estates and the ballance must hang even between them c. To which I shall briefly say this it were to the purpose if it could be proved that the King Lords and Commons make the three Estates But the truth is the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons are the three Estates not to repeat many In the Act of Recognition of Queen Elizabeth We your most loving faithfull and obedient Subjects representing the Three Estates of this Realme which evidently shews the Queen was not esteemed one Anno 8. Eliz. cap. 1. The Clergy being one of the greatest Estates of this Realm it is clear therefore that by the law the Clergy is one estate So when Hen. 5. Funerals were ended The Three Estates did assemble and acknowledge his â—on King For their right of being the thrid Estate unanswerably acknowledged by Parliament it might admit a debate whether any two Estates may conspire to Vote out the third sure if the Commons had been so served Mr. Baxter would have resolved it in the Negative How comes it to passe that that part of Magna Charta which relates to the Clergy should be lesse significant then any other To the Kings Concession to that illegall Bill I onely say this The law takes no notice of an Act but when it is by the assent of the Three Estates nor could the Lay Lords and Commons disoblige the King from his Oath made to the Spiritually there being a particular clause besides the general for securing the Liberty of the Nation In the Coronation Oath for the Rights and Priviledges of the Church nothing but the Church could give them away if yet the Church it self could For it is a thing generally granted that a generall representative cannot cancel Obligations to particular Bodies which truth in any other instance people will acknowledge The House of Commons are the Representative of all the Commons of this Land the City of London hath her Burgesses there If they upon this fancy of involving each ones consent and so doing injury to none should Vote the City paid the money they borrowed of them I believe every one would quickly discover the fallacy of that Plea and explode it as illegall sinfull and rediculous the other case is much harder London is the greatest City the Clergy is one of the greatest Estates in the Nation according to 8. Eliz. cap. 1. London hath some at least that there represent her whereas the Clergy hath not so much as one He saw the impossibility of the Bishops fitting there their Persons and Friends assaulted themselves like to be murthered by the rabble see Bishop Halls Narrative before his last works the Lords making an Order to suppresse the tumults the Commons not concurring but encouraging them the Bils severall times thrown out of the House of Peeres and brought in the same Session contrary to all Order of Parliament considering which I will say onely this Let any man consider in what a condition the Kings Majesty was in then how injurious to himself to one of the greatest Estates of this Realm according to 8. Eliz. that grant was how contrary to Magna harta to the Rights of the Church by Law and his Majesties Oath so much provided for he will easily finde the Kings consent to be extorted and null If I should upon their Protestation against all Acts passed during their forced absence it would not be easily answered Having now shewed the Clergy to make the third Estate which is as much as the King hath been allowed to be of late the main Argument of coordination is thereby removed I will adde but this The Oath of Supremacy asserts the King to be the sole supream Governour and therefore sure the two Houses are not coparceners It is declared in Anno 16. R. 2. c. 5. The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately to God in all things touching the Regality of the said Crown and to no other And again The Realm of England is an Empire governed by One Supream head and King having the dignity an Royall Estate of the Imperiall Crown of the same 24. H. 8. c. 12. unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people in terms and by names of Spiritually and Temporalty been bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience This Body Politick consisting of all sorts and degrees divided into terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty must necessarily be the Parliament there being no other body capable of that appellation and description which here acknowledgeth as such a body it self subject and him Supream The next is a large quotation out of Grotius in Latine that in some cases it is lawfull to resist but they reach not the present Question the first concerns not Supream Magistrates but such things as Sparta had the second none at all the third If the King aliens the Kingdome which sure was not our case fourthly If the King apparently designes the destruction of the whole people I will not wrong the King so much as to endeavour to clear him from that fifthly If there is such a clause c. If the King doth this or that the Subjects are absolved from their Oath produce such a clause and shew how the King broke his Trust Sixth If there is a division of Supremacy and the King encroaches he may beso far resisted I shall make it out the Houses encroached upon him as I have sufficiently evinced the vanity of a coordination In these cases Grotius thinks they who at their entring into society contracted for themselves and posterity intended not to obliege them so far as to dy rather then resist nisi forte cum hoc additamento si resiâ—ti nequeat nisicum maximâ reip perturbatione aut exitio plurimorum â—â—nocentium unlesse by resisting they mightily disturbe the Common wealth or destroy many innocents that being the Parliaments case nothing in Grotius can acquit them from the sin of Rebellion to their Soveraign and the duty of restitution to the Subjects they injured And here are the female and
mechanick Readers amused with that venerable name when in all these cases there is but one that looks toward the Subâ—ect and that too upon the groundlesse fancy of diviâ—ion of Supremacy and with an exception that reaches the Case The Laws in England are above the King because not his Acts alone Whose Acts the Laws are hath been above discussed the consequences of this Proposition I understand not because he hath not done us the favour as to let us know its meaning if it is not more then the words signifie that the King ought to rule according to Law and cannot abrogate Laws at pleasure the King asserted it in all his Declarations In the exactest Monarchies I have shewed there were laws which the Kings were obliged by might they therefore be resisted if they broke them Let us blot then all the precepts of Obedience and Submission out of the Bible as things sit for that pusillanimous if not crafty age And let that patience of the Primitive Christians which made their persecutors admire and love be thought want of opportunity not desire of revenge The King was to execute judgement by his Iudges in his Court of Iustice and his Parliaments was his highest Court By the Parliament meaning the two Houses they are no Court of Judicature the House of Commons have nothing that looks like a Court of Judicature not the power of administring an Oath not the power of Imprisoning any but their own Members notwithstanding the contrary proceedings of those tender Gentlemen of the Liberty of the Subject the Members of the long-Parliament whose Committees could contrary to law imprison men and deny them their Habeas Corpus The House of Lord it is true is a Court of Judicature but that is as they are the Court of the Kings Barons whose judgment is but ministerial and not soveraign as appears in this that though they have power to reverse the Sentence of other Courts yet they cannot reverse their own judgment a clear argument their Authority is not soveraâ—gn whose judgement cannot be so far restrained no not by it self For the two Houses joyned together as the ingenious Author of the Case of our Affaires demonstrates they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of soveraign as ministeriall Jurisdictâ—on no otherwise cooperating then by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act and his Argument is very good which when they have done they are so far from having any legall Authority in the State as that in law there is no stile or or form of their joynt acts nor doth the law so much as take notice of them untill they have the Royall Assent Should it be granted they were yet it is as evident there was a force upon the House then as there was in 1648. â—o that neither the House was full or free first for the Commons a very great number of persons fairly elected kept out upon pretence they had some Project Patent or Monoply and kept in Sr. Henry Mildmay Mr. Lawrence Whitaker the first the chief promoter and notoriously known to be so of the businesse of the gold and silver thred a Commission complained of viewed and examined the other as much employed in matters of that nature as any man but they voted as that party would have them Secondly Severall members of their party sate in the House against the consent of the Burroughs they pretended to serve for when such men were concerned and complaints made all the answer the honest elected Gentlemen could get was questions about Elections were of 〈◊〉 private a nature to be considered and would interrupt their proceedings too much If the Election of any such persons hath been heard at the Committee and they voted out of the House as unduely chosen that report must not be made whereby a good member may be lost as in the case of Mr. Nichols Mr. Pyms Nephew and others Thirdly The Scots Army was not suffered to disband that they might awe the King and dissenting members and Mr. Strode blushed not to say openly They could not yet spare them the sons of Zerviah were too hard for them Though the Bishops and Popish Lords had a Legal Right then at least to sit yet they invited tumults to cry No Bishops no popish Lords Nay made a stand at White-hall and said They would have 〈◊〉 more Porters lodge but would speake with the King when they pleased Proof was offered against that Captain who conducted the Rabble and sollicited them to come with Swords and Pistols yet he was not suffered to be brought to answer the intollerable violence upon the members of both Houses The Bishops were threatned to be pulled in pieces as they came from the House they were faine to steale away for feare of their lives see Bishop Hall's Narrative before his last Work The Lords made an Order to suppresse the Tumults but the Commons would not concurr Severall speeches were made in their Justification They must not discourage their friends this being a time they must makeuse of all their friends Mr. Pym saying God forbid the house of Commons should proceed in any way to dishearten the people to obtain their just desire in such a way Were not the names of these Gentlemen that voted not according to the sence of the good members posted up their persons assaulted did not Alderman Pennington Captain Ven brings down armed multitudes to terrify the members when the worser party as they call it were like to prevaile That the liberty of the house of Peers was no better preserved the arguments are too numerous Mr. Pym could tell the Earle of Doâ—er if he looked for any preferment he must comply with them in their wayes Mr Hollu demanded publickly 〈◊〉 the Bar the names of those Lords who would not consent to some propositions concerning the Militia sent by the Commons they got multitudes to deliver Petitions to both houses and to desire leave that they might protest against those Lords-who would not agree to the Votes of the House of Commons as the Petition of Surrey Harfordshire In this Petition of the poor people about London against the Malignant faction it was desired that those worthies of the Upper house who concurred with them in their happy Votes might sit and Vote in the House of Commons as one entire house professing that unlesse obstructions were removed They should be enforced to lay hold on the next remedy which was at hand to remove the disturbers of the peace 5. The four next Sections amount to this Our Rights were evidently invaded Ship money the new Oath against Law men punished for preaching Lectures twice on the Lords day The Parliament remonstrated our danger we had reason to beleeve them there was a generall endeavour to change the face of things among us many new orders brought into the Church abundance of painfull though peacable preachers cast out ignorant scandalous readers
kept in the Irish Rebells declared for the King we should have been butchred by them when they had conquered Ireland The Right of the people to resist their Prince having been examined we now come to the reasons upon which they did it 1. Shipmoney Not to insist upon the frequent practises of our Kings in that nature the consent of so many venerable judges the abundant care the King took to be informed the employments of it to those worthy ends for which it was raised were enough with al ingenuous minds if there were any miscarriages in the getting at least to excuse them But some men with their Loyalty put of their good nature with their Religion loose their civility But Mr. B. ought to have known that the King had relinquished his claim to Shipmoney before the Warr and therefore that could not be a cause of it Kings may confesse and forsake their faults yet some subâ—ects will not forget them Praticall serious godlinesse was a scorne That was not part of the kings cause but it was very suspicious to see men solemnize a few fasts and think that entiled them to eat other mens bread all their lives after to scruple at being like prophane Absalon who wore long hare yet immitate that good man Absalon that could pay his vow and Rebell devoutly The new Orders in the Church amount to no more then this Those to whom the administration of Ecclesiasticall affairs belong to by the Laws of this land observing some neglect order rudeness in the performance of divine service appointed for its future decency some ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God but some of them were used in the Church of Rome whereupon they were esteemed or at least wise called Popish All that can possibly be said against this is that it is unlawfull to use any thing in Divine Service for which there is neither command nor example in Scripture when by the way the latter confutes the former supposing there may be imitable examples in Scripture of things uncommanded there which would make the black and white caps as much Antichristian as the square one Or secondly it is lawfull to use it but not if it be enjoyned but this cannot be said by Mr B. who pleades for the Civill Magistrates Power in matter of Religion though I think he is scarce resolved to allow him any thing may be called Power but that sure is of a strange nature that ceases to be lawfull when it is commaded by a lawfull Magistrate Or thirdly The being used in the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to be used in the Church of England A very pretty principle truly we must differ from them when we have reason and when we have not reason when they reproach us with separation out of pride humour novelty the most rationall way to acquit our selves sure is to make it appeare we gladly will come as neare to them in Doctrine and Discipline as they will to Truth and pure Antiquity We did not in those things conform to Rome but to the Primitive Church and reduce those things as it were ex postlimino to their native innocent usage from which no additionall corruption of any abroad can rationally debarre us The last is a trim devise That the King would have destroyed us by the Irish Rebels who professed to raise Armes for the King Sect. 10. I suppose Mr. Baxter can tell of some in England who professed to fight for the King yet never had his Commission It seems the King must suffer as the Earle of Strafford was said to doe not for what he had but what he possibly might have done hereafter The War against the Parliament was just upon as good a ground we feared they would undo the Church and State with their Army of Sectaries whom they countenanced when he did not the Rebels in Ireland If the King had made use of the money raised for the relief of Ireland in the War at home when the poore Protestants were like to starve for want of it as the two Houses did he might have been thought to have abetted that Rebellion The Parliament could make such an inhumane Order for divertion of that money from the use it was raised for and when the King sent to them to revoke it for their own credits sake if not for the lives of his poor Irish subjects they according to their usuall rant Voted his messuage a breach of priviledge and made use of that mony to fight against him and yet they would be thought friends to the Protestants in Ireland If inferiour Courts of justice may prosecute the execution of their sentence in severall cases against the Kings will and the Sheriff may raise the power of the County to assist that execution much more may the highest Court but the former is true ergo The Argument is this If the Sheriff may raise the posse Commitatûs when by the law he is enabled so to do ergo the two houses may though the Law doth not enable them raise the posse regni Courts of judicature may use such force as doth not disturbe the peace of the Nation ergo the two houses may raise a war is a far fetcht consequence Again The house of Peers is solely the Court of Judicature the major part of which were evidently with the King The summe of the next three leaves is The warr was not against the Kings person or authority nor to change the Government of King Lords c. nor to take away the magistrates power in matters of Religion as appears by Protestation solemne league Covenant Declarations When I consider their Declarations for the King and their actions against him all I can gather is that notwithstanding their bitter remonstrances of the State of the Kingdome their unworthy unexampled ripping up and publishing to the vulgar all the faults and infelicities of his raigne which Parliaments were in a greater measure the cause of in not yeelding seasonable supply without taking any notice of the satiafaction made and care taken by him for prevention of the like for the time to come or the happy dayes men now remember they then enjoyed by which wayes it is easily to render any Government odious to the credulous and undiscerning populacy notwithstanding all this and the seditious invectives of Pen and Pulpit The King stood so clear in the eyes of all men that the being against him was a thing that they durst not own Though they spoyled him of his goods and endeavoured to do so of his good name ruined his friends preferred his most enraged enemies chased him from place to place they said to bring him to his Parliament when they caught him would not let him come thither though they deprived him of all authority as a King by taking it into their own hands his liberty as a man by imprisonment as an husband by keeping him from his wife as a father from his Children as a Christian
from his Chaplaines all which was done before the armies purge though they did all this yet they said and which is most rediculous some of them say so still they were for the King Quid verba audiam cum facta videam Their actions being such their loyall declarations shew them not more honest but more dissembling if they had too openly discovered they would never have compassed their intentions For example one of their first proposals without which there could be no peace was That all officers civill and military all honours should be conferred on such as were approved by the two houses of Parliament see 19. Prop. The People were willing to fight for so gay as they thought it a priviledge Had the English been a little plainer and it was if men had not been besorted plain enough viz Except all the wealth honour power of the Nation be shared among us and our friends neither King nor people shall be at quiet in these termes which differ little in expression and not at all in sense from the former the Nation would scarce have been fond of being undone in order to the procuring of it Some of their Declarations speak very fair as it was necessary they should and it is a great wonder how such wise and wary men suffered others to be so plaine wherein they palpably reduce to nothing the King and Peers To begin with the King see the Declaration of May 26. 1642. Where they declare that they have power to depose the King and the King had deserved they should do so We should not want either modesty or duty should we follow the highest presidâ—nts of former Parliaments See exact collection of all Remonstrances c. published by order of the house of Commons p. 265. Now Parliaments have deposed Kings as Edw 2. Rich. 2. and that the authors of that Declaration had a particular eye upon those monstrous proceedings is evident by the following words All the world knows what they put in act In the same Declaration they deny the King his Negative Vote so that he hath no Vote at all in making or repealing laws which the meanest Burgesse hath nay the meanest Commoner hath at least one that represents him so that the King is the onely man in the Nation except I may now reckon the Clergy too that is in so high a degree of slavery as to be bound by laws he in no sence concurrs to the making of So farr was he in 1642. from being a King that he was not so much as one of the free-borne people of England This new Doctrine they can prove as what could not the two houses do in those dayes from the very forme used by the King to those bills he fancied not Le Roy Saviserà which say they is a suspension rather then a refusall of assent A suspension if it must be called so was ever heretofore a thing of that validity that during it they are not able to quote one law ever reputed in force If they thought the law to be otherwise they might have done very well to have declared all the bills dashed for so many ages for want of the royall assent to be obliging laws But alas that forme intimates another thing not so pleasing viz. That notwithstanding the two Houses are the Kings great councill and have presented their advice in their concurring Votes yet le Roy Savisera the King may advise with other men as it is notorious in all Chronicles to have been the practise and take their advice if he like it better How little of a king they intended to leave him see nineteen Propositions sent the second of June in 1642 it is to be observed what I cite the Parliament in its purity as the phrase is Ex. Col. p. 307. the summe of all which are That all Peers Iudges Councellers Officers civill and military may be approved by themselves all Ecclesiasticall affairs Forts Castles Pardons Censures New Oaths The Mariage Government of his own Children may be at the disposall of the two houses After the forementioned declaration of May 26. the ordinance concerning the Militia these Propositions I would willingly know in what consists the authority of the King which Mr. B. saies he and they swore and fought to defend Certainly they could not call him Soveraign without a jeere If the houses have once this Power let them be sworne to defend us and no longer let us mock God the King and the world with giving an oath to a man to do that we our selves have rendred it as impossible for him to do as the Chaire in his Presence Chamber The King complaines in severall of his Declarations particularly that of August the 12. 1642. of severall insolent speeches which passed in the house of Commons unreproved as of Mr. Martin That the Kings Office was forfeitable that the happinesse of this Kingdome did not depend upon him nor any of the royall branches of that stock and of Sr. Henry Ludlow That he was not worthy to be King of England p. 550. Ex. Coll. He tells them plainly in his answer to their Declaration of May 26. 1642. That of that monstrous language by the help of God and the Law he must have some examination Ex Coll. p 28. But it may be said these things were done in the height of passion when the sence of those grievances they lately fancied they felt was fresh upon them Afterwards they were more moderate as I have shewed how the Parliament went at the very beginning of the Warr upon those principles their freinds now would be thought to detest I will briefly demonstrate they went by the same when the Warr was ended even whilst it continued Presbyterian for I shall not once mention what was done after the seclusion of Members by the Army and shall quote no Historian but him who wrote alwayes for the Parliament Mr May who in his Historiae Parl. Breviatium p. 146 tells us that on the fiftteenth of July 1646. there were propositions sent by the hands of some Lords and commons and Commissioners for the Scots The King looked upon those proposals as derogatory to his Crown injurious to his people as inconsistent with the quiet of the Nation as of his own conscience and therefore demurred upon them The Earle of Lounden tells the King in a trim Oration that unlesse he will agree to those propositions which himself acknowledges very hard ones it is to be feared he would be deposed and the nation setle in another way of Government without him or any of his Posterity The King resolved he would not give them his Crown they must take it forcibly if they would have it after that he was their Prisoner now he was from his evill Councill one would have thought they would have desired him at least not have denyed him to come nere his Parliament His usage was various sometimes their malice made him know what it was to be confined other times more